Computer Scientists 'Prove' The Existence of God

[ThePeaceableKingdom]

As to the argument, there seems to be a freight-train's worth of baggage left at the station in the use of a idea like "greater" - an ambiguous vagueness common to various restatements of the ontological argument. But proof of the argument isn't what they claim to have achieved. Their claim is just to have found a high level language way of representing its logic for computers, if I understand correctly... (and I may not. It does get a bit beyond me.)

[g.brooks]

Atheists' logic: This guy proved God exists, but I'm an atheist so he didn't prove anything.

[theodore]

Yea the proof requires highly abstract premises to be true. The logic is sound. You sound like you are coping.

[PBrofaith]

The no need to be alarmed comment interested me.
It confuses me a little because many people who describe themselves as atheist also make frequent appeals to the scientific method and evidence. 
So what I am wondering is, what would be your internal reaction to news of experimental evidence that supported the notion that this reality arises from a consciousness, and that everything in it has varying levels of consciousness.    
In my mind that would not validate religion which I see as just being a control grid. But it might add something valuable to our scientific understanding, wisdom.

[focus-learn-attackaccomplish]

this proves that the ontological argument is true so therefore God

[bsirius]

I just posted this in response to MK Ely's comment. It's a good summary of why those who think this as a simplistic theist/anti-theist debate are missing the point. 
It's important to keep in mind that this is far more about the way modal logic is used than about the existence of "god."  The point is that modal logic cannot establish "absolute" truth. What Gödel actually did in his version of the ontological argument (also called Gödel's proof of God) was to establish that within the parameters of his argument, his premises are correct. Does his argument really have any "absolute" validity? No, and grad students of logic are often assigned this argument as a means to grasp that fundamental logical point. Einstein summed this idea up when he said, "As far as the propositions of mathematics [modal could equally validly be substituted here] refer to reality they are not certain, and so far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality."

So in a literal way, you're right, Gödel's initial premises reflect his biases. However, what these German researchers have done is develop new ways to process information using Gödel's mathematical model logic techniques as a way to more quickly process information. In other words. the German researchers were not interested in whether Gödel's proof really proves god's existence. It's obvious it does not. No, instead they adapted Gödel's technique to facilitate information processing. That distinction is the crux here. A lot of commenters don't see that. They want this to be a simple theist/anti-theist debate because they can't see the depth of what's really happening here.

[HebiNoMe]

Internally valid, although still useless in demonstrating anything about reality, as you conceded... The definition of existence proposed in modal logic is incredibly problematic, as Kant also argued.

Existence is not a trait or quality (which can be quantified in terms of minimal or maximal) but a STATIC condition in which traits and qualities take place.

[RARa]

In definition 4 it says there exist positive properties in the world and hence there exist people with positive properties and only way positive properties can be around is due to the existence of god. Nonsense,

[reyfavis]

@Karen Kobie You are re-stating Archbishop of Canterbury Anselem's Onthological Proof in the first part of your video. Gödel's Proof is of a similar nature, but more convoluted logically. Correct, by changing the axioms, which define the attributes of Godliness, you change the results of the proof. A being of all positive attributes is very far removed from the classical religious definition of God. This God could be very uncaring and uncommunicative, like we are to bacteria.

[thethegreenmachine]

Sounds like this guy did slightly better than, "If God exists, then God exists."

[jahcarlson]

Ms. Kobie, you are a god-send! :p keep fighting the good fight

[francistupuola]

God is outside of space and time. He cannot be measured by any unit. Nor His love for you whether you believe in his divinity or not. Only the blood of Jesus Christ can save the soul. And he will never refuse your hand as long as you are willing to go to him. Pick up your own cross and follow. The choice is yours. And I hope I have not offended anyone with this comment because I meant no offense.

[frederickanderson]

God became a human being . Many say its impossible. So man can become a god to be greater.

[RcWingsuit]

To have an atheist be the spokesperson for this video  "Computer Scientists Prove The Existence of God" is fundamentally wrong as an atheist (Godless person) would add their personal doubting nature to the phasing. Note:she does not once go through the formulas logic step by step like a mathematician would do to actually do what it says to prove. God does exist. 

[sparkyy]

The argument is, does a supernatural creator exist given what we observe today ?

  Science does indeed prove an immaterial creator must exist according to
known laws of thermodynamics.

1) The first law, conservation of energy and the relation to matter, E=MC^2 is valid and dictates matter can neither be
created nor destroyed.



 2) Second law. Matter cannot be eternal and maintain an energy
differential without undergoing entropic heat death.


  3) Matter and energy differentials exist at this time.

 All the above premises are undisputed by science, therefor an
immaterial cause for what we observe today is required according to the known laws of physics.
The above also proves we are living in a supernatural universe.

[maradenn]

Way over my head, but thanks for bringing it up. Is this useful in our debates? Will we see it from the apologists? Can we use it to examine definitions of gods and religions?

[harryandruschak]

i squared = j squared = k squared = ijk = -1
OPEN YOUR EYES!

[samueljohncalma]

This is quite easy to refute and btw, this is Anselm's formulation not Gödel. Let's try to doubt it, God by definition is that which no greater can be conceived but Gaunillo argues that since we can conceive such and such properties mentally or in our minds then that doesn't mean that it exists extramentally. ;)

[tongmaa]

The same argument can be applied to the definition of, "Infinity, " a *concept* which has no terminating number. The term, "Zero (0)" is a placeholder separating positive and negative numbers; which themselves have no terminating definition. Is it hubris to use such undefined "numbers" to calculate a justification for the Standard Model, if it isn't for the concept of an infinite being? Didn't Einstein demonstrate such hubris to remove physical creation in order to justify (create) an infinite space-time continuum which responded in curvature when he replaced all material sources? Unicorns to the Left and Unicorns to the Right and it is fun-and-games with the Mad Hatter at tea.

[fortheloveofwisdom]

As with the usual ontological argument I am more familiar with, the claim that it's possible for God to exist cannot be assumed without equivocation on the meaning of possible. The sense one might truthfully assert is only epistemological possibility. Something that is impossible could be epistemologically possible just because someone doesn't know better. But for the argument to work, we need real ontological possibility, and that can't be known without knowing that God actually exists. So it begs the question.